Give up Canada, you're toast

From Simon Fraser University, a new paper says that the Canucks may as well just give up, because its going to warm up no matter what they do. Using powerful new geographic mapping tools on a big screen Mac and a #2 pencil, geographer Kirsten Zickfeld has it all figured out. This is apparently what will cause an end to outdoor ice hockey in Canada.

Warming of 2 degrees inevitable over Canada

photo

SFU geographer Kirsten Zickfeld notes in a new paper she has co-authored that northern hemisphere dwellers will suffer more severe effects of climate change than others. See - it's right there on the map, in Canada. Image from SFU via Flickr

Even if zero emissions of greenhouse gases were to be achieved, the world’s temperature would continue to rise by about a quarter of a degree over a decade. That’s a best-case scenario, according to a paper co-written by a Simon Fraser University researcher.

New climate change research – Climate response to zeroed emissions of greenhouse gases and aerosols — published in Nature’s online journal, urges the public, governments and industries to wake up to a harsh new reality.

“Let’s be honest, it’s totally unrealistic to believe that we can stop all emissions now,” says Zickfeld, an assistant professor of geography at SFU. “Even with aggressive greenhouse gas mitigation, it will be a challenge to keep the projected global rise in temperature under 2 degrees Celsius,” emphasizes Zickfeld.

The geographer wrote the paper with Damon Matthews, a University of Concordia associate professor at the Department of Geography, Planning and Environment.

The duo used an earth system climate model developed by the University of Victoria to study the impact of greenhouse gas and aerosol emissions on the world’s climate. The study was based on emission levels that are consistent with data from the 2007 report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.

The removal of aerosols from the atmosphere would cause additional global warming in the short term, if all of those emissions were removed now. “The widespread presence of aerosols in the Earth’s atmosphere is effectively acting like a solar radiation blocking blanket right now,” explains Zickfeld.

“It’s preventing the Earth’s temperature from responding to the real effects of global warming. But once that aerosol-based blanket is removed the temperature will rise.”

Due to the emission of greenhouse gases, the world’s temperature has warmed by almost 1 ° C since the beginning of the industrial era. The study finds that elimination of all emissions would lead to an additional short-term warming by 0.25 to 0.5 degrees.

“One to 1.5 degrees of global warming may not seem like a great deal,” says Zickfeld. “But we need to realize that the warming would not be distributed equally over the globe, with mid to high latitude regions such as Canada, Alaska, northeastern Europe, Russia and northern China being most strongly affected.

“Our research shows that as a result of past emissions, a warming of at least 2 ° C will be unavoidable in those regions.”

Backgrounder: Study a first on many levels

This study is the first to find that if all greenhouse gas and aerosol emissions were halted now the Earth’s temperature would actually continue to rise by a few tenths of a degree over the next 10 years. Then it would begin to cool by a few tenths of a degree, coming down to its current level after about a century.

During the warming period the Earth’s temperature would rise to roughly 1.3-Celsius degrees higher than it was at the beginning of the industrial era.

In the northern hemisphere that peak temperature would be closer to 2 degrees higher. The reason is that the warming is not distributed equally over the globe, and is amplified at high latitudes.

“Two degrees is pretty significant,” notes Zickfeld, “when you consider the global temperature was only five degrees colder than today’s during the ice age.”

A decrease in greenhouse gases with short atmospheric lifetimes, such as methane and nitrous oxide, will cause the planet to gradually cool off after the warming phase.

The atmospheric concentration of long-lived greenhouse gases such as carbon dioxide determines the world’s long-term temperature.

This study is also the first to quantify the extent to which past greenhouse gas and aerosol emissions will warm oceans, causing them to rise. Zickfeld and Matthews found emissions to date will lead to about a 25 centimeters sea level rise in 2200, and the sea level will continue to rise for several centuries after that date.

The study doesn’t analyse the impact of other factors, such as melting glaciers and ice sheets, on sea levels. These factors are expected to accelerate sea level rise further.

— 30 —

Contact:

Kirsten Zickfeld, 778.782.9047 (w), 604.354.6214 (cell), kzickfel@sfu.ca; Vancouver resident, originally from Germany

Carol Thorbes, PAMR, 778.782.3035, cthorbes@sfu.ca

Note:  Please contact the researcher directly for interviews and copy of paper

Advertisements

  Subscribe  
newest oldest most voted
Notify of
Ibbo

Having experienced a Canadian winter at -25, 2 Degrees warming will not make the slightest difference.
They do know the freezing point of Water is 0 and the average temperatures rage from -10 to -20
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Temperature_in_Canada
Can’t see a two degree rise in temperature making much difference to be honest.

John Marshall

This has just convinced me that geography is not a science subject but wooly Liberal left wing ideology.

….”The duo used an earth system climate model developed by the University of Victoria to study the impact of greenhouse gas and aerosol emissions on the world’s climate. The study was based on emission levels that are consistent with data from the 2007 report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change…..”
Hans Christian Anderson stuff. Start with “data” from the 2007 report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (which is all from models) and end up with manure.

CodeTech

Well this is GREAT news! Heck, the only thing wrong with it is that this is her “best case”.
Speaking as a Canadian, I can’t wait for the warming! Imagine the lengthened growing season, the reduction in snow days, less shoveling of the driveway, no more need for winter tires, and if we’re really lucky, we can stop wasting all that money for Natural Gas to heat our homes!
So…

emissions to date will lead to about a 25 centimeters sea level rise in 2200, and the sea level will continue to rise for several centuries after that date.

Well that’s interesting. So, I should be advising my heirs to sell their seaside property in 2199? Also, way to make a no-brain extrapolation of current sea-level rise trends… 2-3mm per year, times, hmm… 200 years… wait a second, that’s… 40-60cm! She’s even lowballing the current (long term) trend! That’s just bad math right there…
So yeah, Earth to Zickfeld: Canada Wants Warming. Unfortunately, your analysis is a load of crap and we’re not going to get it. Or if we do, it won’t have anything to do with CO2 emissions. Oh well.

“Give up”? I would think they would celebrate!

mike about town

hilarious…will they never tire of dramatic overstatements? We humans have a built in need for an apocalypse…those of us who believe in God believe in a theistic one, while perhaps those who don’t (or just need some more apocalyptic inclinations in their lives) must go with environmental ones.

Spartacus

The publication of this kind of almos non-sense articles is only accessible to alarmists. Poor “Nature (Magazine)”….

Dave

The duo used an earth system climate model developed by the University of Victoria to study the impact of greenhouse gas and aerosol emissions on the world’s climate. The study was based on emission levels that are consistent with data from the 2007 report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.
Well if they used a model it must be true. Especially if the model is based on the infallible IPCC reports.

Claptrap! Emblazoned all over this article are the trappings of the meme that climate is anchored in time. “Then it would begin to cool by a few tenths of a degree, coming down to its current level after about a century.” Who are they trying to kid here? Citing the IPCC report wholesale is not a good place to start. What an embarrassment.

Anopheles

Is it not true that the predicted warming is equivalent, in the NH, to moving a couple of hundred miles south? Nearly everybody in Canada lives within a few miles of the US border. If they want to carry on playing outdoor Ice Hockey, all they need to do is move a couple of hundred miles north. Land is cheap up there, and there is a lot of it. A real lot of it., as anyone who has flown over the pole in winter will know.
Coming back on the coupla hundred miles south thing, would that not mean that the weather we experience will be like that to the south of us now, in most cases, ceteris paribus? So if we exerience ‘warming causing cooling’, that’s because it’s cooler down there now? It isn’t? Well, maybe that meme is not really based in anything but wishful thinking.

…oh yes, and notice the convenient smuggling of ‘aerosols’ into the mix. Just to ensure there is an unquantifiable ‘out’? Amazing bit of everything they have going on.

DirkH

Canada, Australia and California are favorite destinations for German emigrants.
Kirsten Zickfeld was born in Saarbrücken, Germany, and Rahmstorf finds her work outstanding:
http://warpsix.komedia.de/sixcms/media.php/1471/zickfeld.pdf
She expects a failure of the Monsoon due to aerosols and a collapse of the thermohaline circulation. (Of course, with the usual caveats, “we found out that XXX COULD happen”… you know the drill)
Small fry, alarmist phantasist foot soldier, responsible for whipping up scare scenarios. Creates scares since 2006 in Victoria.

Truthseeker

“The duo used an earth system climate model developed by the University of Victoria to study the impact of greenhouse gas and aerosol emissions on the world’s climate.”
There is your problem right there. Turn off the frigging computers and go outside and do some observations. Nothing that the satellite data is showing support this hypothesis.
I am jealous of the computer screen though. It is bigger than my IMac. Size matters …

I am glad that CAGW didn’t exist when I went to SFU.
I pity some of the students of today that are indoctrinated such as the student highlighted here:
http://www.sfu.ca/dean-gradstudies/blog/studentprofiles/TylerHerrington.html
“His undergraduate research experience prepared him well for asking important questions as part of his master’s research program, where he’ll be investigating climate change. His research question: What cumulative CO2 emissions are compatible with regional level tipping points in the Earth’s climate system, such as those affecting the Amazonian rainforest die-back, Greenland ice sheet decay, and complete disintegration of arctic sea ice?”
Complete disintegration of arctic sea ice? Come on, you are making my SFU credentials look bad.

“used an earth system climate model”
Gee, imagine that !!!
GIGO strikes again !!

Ripper

So now Canadian children won’t know what outdoor ice hockey is?

fadingfool

So remove the additional CO2 warming element (i.e. emissions remain at existing levels) then remove the “aerosol” effect invented to “mask” the inadequacies of the CO2 warming model and oh no its “WORSE THAN WE THOUGHT” . And this was published?
How do I get on this gravy train?
Seriously I’m fed up with having to work for a living.

TomO

Sigh… they don’t give up do they?
I’d like to see if their funding application stated the study outcome…
Contrivance, conflation, confirmation bias and unverified computer models.
Didn’t see anything mentioned about going outside and taking some measurements….

Lew 'Big Oil' Skannen

OK. So we are doomed even more doomedly that we had previously been doomed.
Are there now new levels of doomedness we should be preparing for or what?

Jimbo

Due to the emission of greenhouse gases, the world’s temperature has warmed by almost 1 ° C since the beginning of the industrial era.

To put it another way:

Since the end of the Little Ice Age, the world’s temperature has warmed by almost 1 ° C since the beginning of the industrial era.

Funny that. ;O)

Luther Wu

Two degrees temp rise in 10 years and only if we completely stop all emissions right now… doomed, for sure.

Eve

That must be why I just moved to the Bahamas, where is is a balmy 72 at present. At home it is 7 C. Canada may get so hot, people will not leave but I doubt it.

Gail Combs

They do not give up do they?
I wonder when Canada’s internet/media censorship laws will go into effect? If Australia is getting censorship laws and they are trying to impose them here in the USA Canada can not be far behind.
See: http://www.australianclimatemadness.com/2012/03/censorship-comes-to-australia/

Dude

Well that’s good to know. Now they should do a study on why their theory does not seem to prove itself out from 2007- today. Since they say that the Earth will continue to warm even if there is no more CO2 in the air how can they validate their study since the Earth has actually cooled and more CO2 is in the air than at the time of their study……………
Fools. Fools working for grants saying the proper things to get another grant.

General P. Malaise

…still using false data and false assumptions. it is criminal.

The duo used an earth system climate model…
So the report should read:
Even if zero emissions of greenhouse gases were to be achieved, the MODEL’S world’s temperature would continue to rise by about a quarter of a degree over a decade. …
The removal of aerosols from the atmosphere would cause additional global warming IN THE MODEL used…
“The widespread presence of aerosols in the MODEL Earth’s atmosphere is effectively acting like a solar radiation blocking blanket right now,” explains Zickfeld BECAUSE THAT’s HOW WE PROGRAMMED THE AEROSOLS TO WORK IN THE MODEL.
And so on….

Blade

Due to the emission of greenhouse gases, the world’s temperature has warmed by almost 1 ° C since the beginning of the industrial era. The study finds that elimination of all emissions would lead to an additional short-term warming by 0.25 to 0.5 degrees.”

It’s official! She has admitted what I suspected all along. The Earth is supposed to still be in the Little Ice Age, but no longer is thanks *completely* to the actions of human beings.
She leaves no wiggle room in that quote, every single fraction of that fraction of a degree increase is due to human influence, none of it would have occurred but for humans and their evil activities. Not even a slither of that fraction of a degree is attributed to natural warming rebounding from a cold period.
I always try to ask that specific question to the warmie trolls and their sympathetic lukewarmers and they always duck it, so I guess Kirsten Zickfeld didn’t get the memo to keep it ambiguous.
So I suggest that everyone confront all the warmies and their sypathetic lukewarmers and demand a simple answer to these questions. No more ducking! Are we supposed to still be in the Little Ice Age? Is that why we should flush trillions of more dollars down the climate science toilet bowl, to ‘recover’ the climate back to the Little Ice Age?

Shevva

1900 – 1999 – Nuclear, DNA, Computers, penicillin.
2000 – 2099 – Activist Political Science. Fondle slabs(iPad).

Martin Brumby

Yeah, right.
I’m sure all those Canucks (especially the ones living in Northern Canada) will be quaking in their boots. But that’s more likely because it is ####ing cold than because Zickfeld is predicting that it just might get warmer.
There’s more danger of her prodding ’em up the bum by tapping her big screen Mac with that pencil.
Nice to see young lassies make it to be “associate professor” now-a-days.
In my day I never heard of “associate” professors and “real” professors were pretty high grade boffins who had all been around for years and seen a thing or two.

Garry Stotel

I guess there is nothing left to do but wait out 7 years and 9 months and see whether ice hockey as we know it will survive.
If this means that Canadians will lose more readily to Czech and Russians, I am going to go and put my coal fired stove on.
“The atmospheric concentration of long-lived greenhouse gases such as carbon dioxide determines the world’s long-term temperature.” What about water vapour? What about the Sun? What about asymptomatic saturation of CO2? What about negative feedbacks? What about all the other stuff that affects the climate, that Anthony put out here.
So that is it then, CO2 drives the climate. Simples…

Steve Keohane

Zickfeld and Matthews found emissions to date will lead to about a 25 centimeters sea level rise in 2200, and the sea level will continue to rise for several centuries after that date.
Does this nearly 10″ of SL rise happen all at once in 2200? I’m glad I live at 6600′, I predict in 2200, I won’t care about SL. This has to be one of the silliest papers published.

Louis Hooffstetter

The duo (of geographers) used a climate model… to study the impact of greenhouse gas… on climate… based on… data from the 2007 report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change… and published in Nature’s online journal.
Unbelievable! (Literally)

Other experts have already told us Canucks that we’re toast if we get a suntan – see this 1999 Center for Disease Control PSA. I first saw it on a billboard at the side of a Northern Ontario highway.
Now it turns out that the latitude that far North makes it tricky, indeed, to get enough Vitamin D from sunlight. The CDC’s scaremongering may well have increased the risk of a range of diseases now thought to be linked to Vitamin D deficiency in northernly communities.
Moral of the story: experts are often mistaken – and often miss the big picture.

klem

I live in Canada and I welcome a 2C rise over the next 100 years, I wish it would happen over the next 100 hours. Matter of fact it has; only two days ago it was -10C, and tomorrow it will be +15C. That’s a 25C range in only a couple of days, not unusual really for March.
So a 2c rise over 100 years is a big deal, in what way?

John F. Hultquist

She should know. The local B.C. area is a hotbed of the hot-house (aka greenhouse) industry and they use . . .
Liquid carbon dioxide and carbon dioxide extracted from boiler flue-gas condensers are used to supplement carbon-dioxide (CO2) levels in the crop. (p.6)
http://www.agf.gov.bc.ca/ghvegetable/publications/documents/industry_profile.pdf

Oops, here’s the link to the CDC poster:
http://www.cdc.gov/cancer/skin/pdf/toast-poster.pdf

Francisco Fernandez

Well, make up your mind!! Aerosols were bad for ozone and now they can block the sun heat and prevent global warming…. Oh, that’s right, when their predictions in the 90’s failed they switched to AGW. Then Climate change. But the 80’s was Global cooling, right? (I might be a little young to get that one right).
They are so full of it.
The only thing that is correct in this article is that no matter what we do, we can’ effect the weather, in a Global Scale, more than we can count the water molecules on earth and their exact state at any given time, all of them.

BrettR

My goodness, is this all it takes to get a paper published these days if you’re on the “right” side? I’m going into climate science so I can get grant money to study the effects of climate change on the brewing industry. Just imagine the headlines, ” Climate change will cause beer shortage!” I’ll make a mint.
I have to agree with AleaJactaEst; this study is a great example of GIGO.

1DandyTroll

So, essentially, their model program computes a faster rate of warming, than the previous 100 years, the comming decade if all the emissions stopped today.
How lucky, err convinient, that we can’t stop the emissions then.
Maybe they shouldn’t strip down the models too much, lest the CAGW proponents start thinking that the removal of coal-fired power plants will accelerate the warming bazillion folds. :p

rilfeld

It’s OK. They play hockey indoors nowadays. Of course, the same computer model probably shows Toronto winning the cup.

Kelvin Vaughan

CodeTech says:
March 7, 2012 at 4:42 am
Well this is GREAT news! Heck, the only thing wrong with it is that this is her “best case”.
Speaking as a Canadian, I can’t wait for the warming! Imagine the lengthened growing season, the reduction in snow days, less shoveling of the driveway, no more need for winter tires, and if we’re really lucky, we can stop wasting all that money for Natural Gas to heat our homes!
Don’t get too excited, I’ve been waiting for the same thing in the UK since the 1960’s but nothing has warmed up yet to any noticeable degree..

Charles.U.Farley

Surely, you can only accurately model something when :
A) You understand the system/event/behaviour in its entirety.
B) Have accurate data to model with.
Since none of the above is true they might just as well read the tea leaves….should be quite accurate compared to their models predictions if past performance is an indicator… Duh!

Sermon for Today:
“Repent all ye polluters, for according to the the Holy Writ of I-Pee-See-See and the Gospel According to the Models, even if you cleanse the breath of your foul smokestacks, the demonic Greenhouse Gasses will still roast our Northern Climes. Your children will trade their skates for rollers, and our hardy trappers of fur will have to trek far in pursuit of the disappearing game. With the Great Warming will come implacable Deniers from the avariscious South, intent on despoiling our once-snowy lands to feed the shirtless hordes in their soulless cities.
“Ye, though the Heretics might attempt to frighten you with shouts of ‘Science! Science’, know that there is no true Science that may countervale the prescient Gospel of the Models, which contain all Truth, past, present, and—Praise to Gaia and her Prophet the Algoracle!—the Future of our Earth. Let none dispute the glorious truth of the Models, lest all True Prophecy fail, and Doubt enter the hearts of the Faithful of the Climate.
“Can we hear an Amen?”
/Mr Lynn

pete

Dear Canadians
Just a note to ease your concerns a little.
I live in Australia where the weather is perfect,(drought + flood/2 = perfect on average) and the temperature is way more than 2C hotter than Canada. Your gunna luv it, but if you can, try for a bit more than 2, just to be sure.
This study, done by a geographer should be accurate because she used data from the IPPC.How could you go wrong.

Kaboom

We’re already tracking below scenario C from Hansen’s “no emissions of CO2 after 2000” paper from 1988. Actually cutting them will undoubtedly hurl us into the next ice age within 5 years.

Chris S

What this article fails to mention is… Man Made Climate Change is BULLSH*T! The earth has been warming and cooling for BILLIONS of years! As cold as ice ages and back up to tropical weather. There is a VERY good reason for this temperature change. It’s the same reason, In Canada Monday could be -10 degrees, and Tuesday could be +13 (and change of 23 degrees in 24 hours!) It’s called THE SUN! In virtually ALL so called “climate change models” The SUN is always used as a “constant” where the sun in reality is the single largest variable regarding Global climate (as well as the other planets in our solar system) This little “oversight” in “climate science” is a deliberate deception to place undue negative scrutiny on C02. If we were to DOUBLE our C02 emissions it would not have an affect on our global temperature! C02 is AIR to plants. Regardless of how large you think cities and developed areas are, they still represent a TINY FRACTION of the total land mass of our planet. The overwhelming vegetation is MORE than capable of using that extra C02 growing larger and more dense, and providing more oxygen in return. C02 is not even really a “Green house gas” as you are led to believe. Methane is a good example of a greenhouse gas because it is not used by nature. Why do they want to control C02? SIMPLE! Controlling C02 allows them to control the emitters of C02… HUMAN BEINGS! The end game goal is to use C02 regulations to “tax” enough billions from each country to fund a GLOBAL CLIMATE COURT. That will be able to draft GLOBAL standards (laws) that all countries will have abide by. A true, unelected, unaccountable WORLD government. That will be able to regulate how much food you can eat or how much gas/electricity you can consume (without having to buy more “carbon credits”) Think I’m “Crazy”. You can search to very simple things to prove everything I have said is true. 1) As the Earth started documented warming in the early 1990’s so did the temperature of other planets like Mars. (obviously the Sun and not our C02 emissions is responsible for that.)
As for the “Carbon Allowance” /World government scheme…. simply check out CCX or “Chicago Climate Exchange” Created by non other than Al Gore who is set to profit in the tens of billions if this ever catches on as they have been trying so desperately since the Club of Rome met in 1991 and decided “man made global warming” would be the easiest way to unite mankind against ITSELF and allow for control of the general population. “”The common enemy of humanity is man. In searching for a new enemy to unite us, we came up with the idea that pollution, the threat of global warming, water shortages, famine and the like would fit the bill. All these dangers are caused by human intervention, and it is only through changed attitudes and behavior that they can be overcome. The real enemy then, is humanity itself.” (just before the Rio Earth Summit of 1992 where Maurice Strong announced the biggest threat to mankind…. Global Warming. (now called “climate change” because the Earth had stopped warming for almost 10 years so they had to change the name to make it sound legitimate!)
So the next time somebody talks to you about it being hot or cold… Tell them to shut up and look up. That big orange ball in the sky, the sun… it has the equivalent to millions of nuclear explosions going off at once in random sections in random orders due to so many uncalcuable factors… and THAT’s what determines the temperature on our planet Earth (as well as the other planets of our solar system.) NOT our SUV’s!

Chris B

Having chosen UBC over SFU I feel a little vindicated this morning.
I have a final solution for CAGW research involving predictions. Place the money in trust for the duration of the prediction. If the prediction is accurate the money is awarded. If the prediction is wrong the money is refunded to the sucker, er, funder. This would eliminate the “guessing” and fake science.

Mark F

I heard part of the interview on a Vancouver talk show. I wanted to scream! The host (Bill Good) still seems to believe in the evil tooth demon. The Engineering programs at that university (Simon Fraser) are truly great, and it seems a tragedy that another branch of technological academics should have two left feet to walk in lock-step with the artsy crowd there in the social “sciences”.

Good records of river freeze/breakup dates in the Northwest exist from the mid eighteenth century to mid twentieth century. The Hudson Bay factors were quite interested in river ice. Factors ( remember, the ” mountain men ” of Montana were mostly Hudson Bay employees from the Orkneys) were not self sufficient. Their flour, salt, sugar,tea,wine,beef,pork ,candles,wool pants etc.
were supplied from Montreal by canoe., When starvation threatens if the river doesn’t thaw , you keep accurate records.
The archives show winter breakup becoming a month earlier and freezup a month later over the 2 centuries.
The Hudson Bay Company did sell hockey sticks, but not until the twentieth century.
John McManus

steveta_uk

In the northern hemisphere that peak temperature would be closer to 2 degrees higher. The reason is that the warming is not distributed equally over the globe, and is amplified at high latitudes.

That’s odd – I always though the Earth was round, and that ‘high latitudes’ were just as common in the south.
You live and learn, eh?